NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

PROJECT

INHERENT POWERS OF COURT UNDER THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, 1908

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

PROF. PRATYUSHA NAYDU VINEET KUMAR

2014/B.A. LLB/058
MASUD AZHAR CHAUDHARY
2014/B.A. LLB/026

TABLE OFCONTENTS
LIST OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................3

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................5

Scheme of Inherent Power Under The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908............................6

INHERENT POWERS: MEANING & SCOPE...................................................................9

Judicial Interpretations of Inherent Power........................................................................9

Alternative for No Other Remedy........................................................................9

To Advance Interests of Justice..............................................................................11

Restoration of Money Suit......................................................................................12

Consolidation of Suits..............................................................................................13

No Scope for Getting Any Relief............................................................................15

LIMITATIONS OF INHERENT POWERS U/S 151..........................................................16

CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................18

Page | 2
 LIST OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

43 DLR 207............................................................................................................... 8
Abbayolla M Subba Reddy vs. Padmamma, AIR 1999 AP 19................................................14
AIR 1925 Mad 42....................................................................................................... 5
AIR 1958 Cal 710..................................................................................................... 12
AIR 1962 SC 527........................................................................................................ 4
AIR 1974 SC 1880...................................................................................................... 9
AIR 1998 SC 1624...................................................................................................... 3
B.K.N. Pillai vs. P. Pillai & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 614..............................................................5
Bahadur Pradhani vs. Gopal Patel, AIR 1964 Ori 134.......................................................10
Dalpat Kumar & Anr. vs. Prahlad Singh & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 276..........................................6
Debendranath vs. Satya Bala Dass, AIR 1950 Cal 217 pg. 233...............................................5
Delhi Administration vs. Gurudeep Singh Uban, AIR 2000 SC 3737.........................................3
Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 550...........................................5
K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palaanisamy, 2011 AIAR (CIVIL) 497................................................13
KM Sarwar Hossain vs. Mosharraf Hossain and others, 45 DLR 562........................................8
Kuldip Singh vs. Prabhjot Alias Silky Minor, 1995 Cri LJ 223.................................................9
M/s Bokaro & Ramgur Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1973 Pat 340............................12
M/s Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate vs. The Commissioner of I.T, AIR 1977 SC 1348..........8
M/s. Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Barabanki (U.P.) vs. Kanhayalal Bhargava, AIR 1966
SC 1899................................................................................................................ 9
MahendraManilal vs. SushilaMahendra AIR 1965 SC 364 p. 399..........................................14
Manoharlal vs. Seth Hiralal, 1962 AIR 527.....................................................................13
Mozaffar Ahmed vs. M Saleh Ahmed 40 DLR 239................................................................8
Mst. Ramdayee vs. Dhanraj Kochar & ors., AIR 1972 Cal 313..............................................12
N S Mills vs. UOI, AIR 1976 SC 1152...............................................................................5
R vs. University of Cambridge, (1723) 1 STR 757................................................................3
Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills (p) Ltd. vs. Kanhaya Lal Bhargava, AIR 1966 SC 1899..............14
Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills vs. Kanhayalal, [1961] 1 S.C.R. 884.....................................8
Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, AIR 1955 SC 425........................................................4
Shahr Banoo Mohsin Asgar and another vs. Lailun Nahar Ershad and others, 44 DLR 552............8
Shambhoo Dayal vs. Chandra Kali Devi & Ors, AIR 1964 All 350.........................................12

Page | 3
State of Karnataka vs. All India Manufacturers Association, AIR 2006 SC 1846..........................6
State of Rajasthan vs. Motiram, AIR 1973 Raj 223.............................................................12
Velayudhan Nair vs. Kerela Ksheman Yunik Kuries Pvt. Ltd, Trichur, AIR 1988 Ker 223..............15

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Code of Civil Procedure, Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan Judge, Honble Supreme Court of India............3
Inherent Powers of a Civil Court under C.P.C., Priyanka Agarwal............................................3
Inherent Powers of Civil Court u/s.151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Vinayak Dhotre.............4
Inherent Powers of the Court Constitutional Law Essay, UK Essays November 2013....................4

BOOKS

P Ramanatha Aiyar, concise law dictionary, 3rd Edn, reprint 2009, Lexis Nexis............................6
Takwani C K, Civil Procedure, 6th Edn, 2009, Eastern Book Company at pg 734..........................6

Page | 4
 INTRODUCTION

Indian legal framework provides certain special powers to the judiciary that is to be exercised
under certain circumstances only. The basic principle of giving such a power to judiciary is to
enable it to some special steps in order to ensure justice. Any code, whether laying down laws
for criminal justice system or civil process of Court, is based on the principle of natural
justice. Natural justice means justice to be done naturally which is adopted naturally by the
habits of every individual. It does not mean godly-justice or justice of nature. It simply means
an inbuilt habit of a person to do justice. 1 The first reported case of principles of natural
justice in Dr. Bentelys case, i.e., R vs. University of Cambridge 2, wherein reference of the
incident of Garden of Eden was made. The two words are repeated every day in the courts-
justice and law. Justice is an illusion as the meaning and definition of justice varies from
person to person and party to party. Parties feel that they have got justice only and only if the
case succeeds before the court, though it may not have a justifiable claim.3

Special or inherent powers of Indian Courts are provided under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (u/s 482), and the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (u/s 151) as inherent powers
of the Court.

The word Inherent is very wide in itself. It means existing and inseparable from something,
a permanent attribute or quality, an essential element, something intrinsic, or essential, vested
in or attached to a person or office as a right of privilege. 4 Thus the inherent powers form an
inseparable part of Indian judiciary.

1 Code of Civil Procedure, Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan Judge, Honble Supreme Court of India
(Accessed at: http://www.nja.nic.in/16%20CPC.pdf)

2 R vs. University of Cambridge, (1723) 1 STR 757

3 Delhi Administration vs. Gurudeep Singh Uban, AIR 2000 SC 3737

4 Inherent Powers of a Civil Court under C.P.C., Priyanka Agarwal (Accessed at:
http://lexquest.in/inherent-powers-of-a-civil-court-under-c-p-c/)

Page | 5
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a procedural law and also deals with certain substantive
rights. Honble Supreme Court of India, in the matter of Saiyad Mohd. Bakar vs. Abdulhabib
Hasan5, ruled that;

A procedural law is always in aid of justice, not in contradiction or to defeat the very object
which is sought to be achieved. A procedural law is always subservient to the substantive
law. Nothing can be given by a procedural law what is not sought to be given by a
substantive law and nothing can be taken away by the procedural law what is given by the
substantive law.

The object of the code is to facilitate justice and further its ends. 6 The Code of Civil
Procedure is not exhaustive, the reason for this being that the legislature is incapable of pre-
empting all possible circumstances which may arise in future litigation, and consequentially
for providing the procedure for the same.7 Generally, the Courts do not face any big hurdle in
achieving the ends of justice, but there are some situation in which Courts feel absence of any
specific provision in order to grant relief, i.e. which can be exercised ex debito justitiae, in
absence of express provisions in the code and in absentia of any procedure, inherent powers
of court and the scheme there under is engrafted under the code of civil procedure.8

SCHEME OF INHERENT POWER UNDER THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 vests certain special powers to the Court in more than one
sections. Sec. 148, Sec. 148-A, Sec. 149, Sec. 150, Sec. 151, Sec. 152, Sec. 153 and Sec. 153-
A. the most important among these for discussion is Sec. 151. It reads;

Nothing in the code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the
Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of
the process of the Court.

5 AIR 1998 SC 1624

6 Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, AIR 1955 SC 425

7 Inherent Powers of the Court Constitutional Law Essay, UK Essays November 2013, (Accessed at:
http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/inherent-powers-of-the-court-
constitutional-law-essay.php?cref=1)

8 Inherent Powers of Civil Court u/s.151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Vinayak Dhotre
(Accessed at: http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/INHERENT-POWERS-OF-CIVIL-COURT-
U-S-151-OF-CODE-OF-CIVIL-PROC-3071.asp)

Page | 6
Clearly, the Courts are to exercise the inherent powers to (i) meet the ends of justice, or to
prevent (ii) abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) there is no limitation in such inherent
power under the Code.

The Supreme Court in the case of Raj Bahadur Ras Raja vs. Seth Hiralal9 observed that;

The inherent power has not been conferred on the court; it is a power in the court by virtue
of its duty to do justice between the parties before it.

In Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd 10, a two-judge bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, after making reference to a number of earlier decisions rendered by different
High Courts in India, stated the legal position thus:

...... Where the Court is misled by a party of the Court itself commits a mistake which
prejudices a party, the Court has the inherent power to recall its order.

Further, the Apex Court has observed that inherent power has its roots in necessity and
breadth is co-extensive with the necessity.11

Ends of Justice: the main aim of the legal system is to achieve justice for all. No one
should be left complaining that he had faced injustice at the instance of decisions
taken by the judiciary. The Court explained the phrase ends of justice and laid down
that:
Ends of justice are solemn words and not mere polite expression in juristic
methodology and justice is the pursuit and end of all law. But these words do not
mean vague and indeterminate notions of justice according to statutes and laws of the
land.12
In other words, the Court has authority to do anything if it is of the opinion that such
an act is essential and equitable for meeting the ends of justice. 13 Further, where the
order passed by a lower court is in the interest of justice, the higher court can refuse to
interfere u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 even if the lower court had no

9 AIR 1962 SC 527

10 Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 550

11 N S Mills vs. UOI, AIR 1976 SC 1152

12 Debendranath vs. Satya Bala Dass, AIR 1950 Cal 217 pg. 233

13 See AIR 1925 Mad 42

Page | 7
 jurisdiction to pass such an order. The interference in revision is discretionary and
should be used only in interest of justice and not in a case where interference is not in
the interest of justice.14 In a case, the Court felt it necessary to interfere on the grounds
of safeguarding the rights of a minor as laid down by Sec. 31 of the Guardians and
Wards Act, 1980.15 Where an amendment is found to be necessary for promoting the
ends of justice and not for defeating the same the application should be allowed.16
Further, many a times, the parties have resorted to use of the phrases like prima facie
case or balance of convinience or irreparable loss. Though the litigants are free to
adopt their interpretation of such phrases, Honble Supreme Court, in the matter of
Dalpat Kumar & Anr. vs. Prahlad Singh & Ors.17, held as under:
The phrases prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are
not rhetoric phrases for incantation, but words of width and elasticity, to meet myriad
situations presented by mans ingenuity in given facts and circumstances, but always
is hedged with sound exercise of judicial discretion to meet the ends of justice. The
facts rest eloquent and speak for themselves. It is well-nigh impossible to find from
facts prima facie case and balance of convenience.
Abuse of the Process of the Court: another ground upon which the Court can exercise
its inherent jurisdiction is to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Here, abuse
of process means the frivolous and vexatious use of legal proceedings 18 and abuse of
the process of the court also means the malicious and improper use of some regular
legal proceedings to obtain an unfair advantage over an opponent. 19 The notable point
here is that abuse of the process can be committed by both the party and the court. 20 In
the matter of State of Karnataka vs. All India Manufacturers Association21, the
Supreme Court elucidated the norm enshrined in Explanation IV to Section 11

14 Accessed at: http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/inherent-powers-of-

the-court-constitutional-law-essay.php#ftn12

15 Ibid

16 B.K.N. Pillai vs. P. Pillai & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 614

17 Dalpat Kumar & Anr. vs. Prahlad Singh & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 276

18 See P Ramanatha Aiyar, concise law dictionary, 3rd Edn, reprint 2009, Lexis Nexis

19 Ibid

20 Takwani C K, Civil Procedure, 6th Edn, 2009, Eastern Book Company at pg 734

Page | 8
 observing that it is for precluding the abuse of the process of the Court through re-
agitation of settled issues merely because the petitioners drew semantic distinctions
from the earlier case. If the issues that had been raised ought to have been raised in
the preceding case, it would amount to abuse of process of the Court and, thus, cannot
be allowed.

21 State of Karnataka vs. All India Manufacturers Association, AIR 2006 SC 1846

Page | 9
 INHERENT POWERS: Meaning & Scope

The dictionary suggests that the word inherent means natural, or existing inseparable from
something, or a permanent attribute or quality, or an essential element, something intrinsic or
essential, vested in or attached to a person or office as a right of privilege. 22 Further, in the
case of Seth Lookasan Sethiya vs. Ivan E John, the word power was defined as authority,
whether any discretion is left or not and whether any direction is imperative or directory
relates to the manner and exercise of the power and not to the basic ingredient of the
authority itself.23

The powers enjoyed by the Courts by the meaning of inherent powers are not conferred
upon them, rather they are inherent in every Court. An interesting point is that although it is
an important provision, Sec. 151 itself does not provide any specific guidelines as to when
these powers are to be exercised except using two phrases, i.e. Ends of Justice and Abuse
of Process of Court. The Supreme Court of India accepted this fact and has, in the matter of
Raj Bahadur Ras Raja vs. Seth Hiralal24, ruled that:

The inherent power has not been conferred on the court; it is a power in the court by virtue
of its duty to do justice between the parties before it.

The Court will exercise its inherent powers to deal with the cases that the Code of Civil
Procedure does not specifically deal with. If there are specific provision of the C.P.C dealing
with the specific issue and they expressly or by basic implication, then the inherent powers of
the Court cannot be invoked as in-built powers itself means those which are not specified in
C.P.C. Further, these powers cannot be invoked as an appellate power and does not extend to
pass administrative or ministerial orders.25

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF INHERENT POWER

22 Concise Oxford English Dictionary (2002); Chambers 20th Century Dictionary (1992) at pg 647;
Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary (1994) at pg 732

23 AIR 1975 ALL 113 at pg 121

24 AIR 1962 SC 527

25 AIR 1980 Mad 269, para 16

Page | 10
 ALTERNATIVE FOR NO OTHER REMEDY
The courts can exercise their inherent powers only in special circumstances where, the
petitioner or the aggrieved party who approaches the court has already exhausted all other
remedies available and the case falls within the category of special circumstances. In absence
of such special circumstances, the Court cannot grant relief through inherent powers when the
justice can be served by other remedy available.

Further, the powers saved by the virtue of Sec. 151 are not over the substantive rights enjoyed
by the litigant through constitution and basic fundamental laws. In the matter of Ram Chand
and Sons Sugar Mills vs. Kanhayalal,26 it was held by the Apex Court that:

The Court would not exercise its inherent power under S.151 CPC if it was inconsistent
with the powers expressly or impliedly conferred by other provisions of Code. It had opined
that the Court had an undoubted power to make a suitable order to prevent the abuse of the
process of the Court.

Further the Supreme Court is of the view that Courts had power under Section 151, in the
absence of any express or implied prohibition, to pass an order as may be necessary for the
ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.27 But a different view was
put forward in the matter of Mozaffar Ahmed vs M Saleh Ahmed28, as per which:

Wilful concealment of a material fact on the part of the petitioners which tantamounts to
practising fraud upon court is sufficient ground to invoke the provision of section 151 of the
Code to set at naught the ex parte decree, even though there is alternative remedy provided in
the Code for setting aside ex parte decree under Order IX, rule 13 CPC.

This is where the rule that the one who approaches the Court must come with clean hands
comes into play. Any kind of misrepresentation or fraud or suppression of facts of done by
the complainant, will hamper chances of court ruling in his favour. In cases of fraud upon the
Court, it may exercise inherent powers to set things right even though there are alternative

26 Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills vs. Kanhayalal, [1961] 1 S.C.R. 884

27 M/s Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate vs. The Commissioner of I.T, AIR 1977 SC 1348

28 Mozaffar Ahmed vs. M Saleh Ahmed 40 DLR 239

Page | 11
remedies open29 as Fraud vitiates the entire proceedings and it is the duty of the court to bury
the suit the moment fraud comes to its notice.30

Sometimes, it may be concluded that a mistake was committed on the part of Court officer or
due to some irregularity in court procedure has resulted in injustice to any of the parties to the
suit. Similar circumstances occurred in the matter of Boynuddin vs. Azimuddin31, deciding
upon which, the Court observed that under such circumstances, the power under section 151
of the Code can be exercised for the purpose of giving necessary relief even though there is
an alternative remedy for doing the same.

TO ADVANCE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE

To meet the ends of justice is a judicially accepted ground for exercising the inherent
powers of the Court. As per theory, the decision of Court should be such that no party may
feel challenged by it or feel that it is unsatisfactory. In a case, where as per the appellants
contention, certain events took place during the pendency of first suit due to which the first
was not fruitful and in law the said suit could not be kept pending and continued solely for
the purpose of continuing an interim order made in the said suit. While putting this contention
under scrutiny, the Court had to consider whether the court can take cognizance of a
subsequent event to decide whether the pending suit should be disposed or not. Deciding on
the question that whether a defendant was legally entitled to make an application u/s 151,
C.P.C. for dismissal of the suit on the ground that said suite lacks cause of action, the Court
upheld the contention of the appellant.32

It is an accepted fact that the inherent powers provided under the Code of Civil Procedure
adhere to less of formalism because the development and history of inherent powers revolve
around the concept of justice. However this does not mean that inherent powers strike at
formalities. On the other hand, these powers are exercised to advance the cause of justice.

29 Shahr Banoo Mohsin Asgar and another vs. Lailun Nahar Ershad and others, 44 DLR 552

30 KM Sarwar Hossain vs. Mosharraf Hossain and others, 45 DLR 562

31 43 DLR 207

32 M/s. Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Barabanki (U.P.) vs. Kanhayalal Bhargava, AIR
1966 SC 1899

Page | 12
An interesting state of facts occurred before the Court in the matter of Kuldip Singh33, where
in a proceedings seeking for maintenance, the Court had concluded the case, pronounced the
judgment, typed and corrected but the same remained unsigned due to the death of
magistrate. It was observed by the Court that the judgment did not render ineffective in above
circumstances. Referring to the Courts ruling in the matter of Iqballsmail Sodawa/a vs. State
of Maharashtra, the Court held that:

An application to quash the execution of an order for maintenance on the ground that
judgment was unsigned was not sustainable. Whether inherent powers are applied or not in a
given circumstances the High Court always looks forward to protect the interest of justice.34

This however does not mean that less adherence to the formalism implies towards discarding
the procedure established by law. The High Court can consider a petition filed u/a 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 as one filed u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. also. Even without
the affected persons coming to the court the High Court in connected proceedings could
invoke inherent powers.

RESTORATION OF MONEY SUIT

The inherent powers of court can be invoked in the matter pertaining to restoration of money
suit. The suit may have been dismissed by the appropriate court for certain judicial grounds.
However the Court may refuse to entertain such restoration application if it is not of a special
character.

In the matter of Bahadur Pradhani vs. Gopal Patel35, the Court rejected plaint of a money
suit for non-payment of deficit court fee within the time period specified by the Court. The
plaintiff approached the Court with a petition u/s 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to restore
the suit in the interest of justice. The Court, allowing the petition granted restoration of suit.
The Court, examining the scope of inherent powers held that:

The provisions of the Code do not control the inherent powers of the court by limiting it or
otherwise affecting it. It is a power inherent in the court by virtue of its duties to do justice
between the parties before it.

33 Kuldip Singh vs. Prabhjot Alias Silky Minor, 1995 Cri LJ 223

34 AIR 1974 SC 1880

35 Bahadur Pradhani vs. Gopal Patel, AIR 1964 Ori 134

Page | 13
But the applicant has no right to move repeated application, especially when prayer for
injunction in a suit for recovery of money, is prima facie not competent, and order of
attachment will protect the right of plaintiff to execute the decree of the Court, as the
executing Court can always ignore transfers made after attachment. 36

The important condition to be fulfilled to get the suit restored is that the plaintiff praying for
such restoration must show that there is sufficient cause. In a case, the plaintiffs suit was
dismissed by the court on the account of non-appearance on the date of hearing. The counsel
for plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is an old man living in Germany and has travelled to
India many a times to attend hearing of case and counsel filed an affidavit. Respondent
argued that the plaintiff had not filed an affidavit stating reasons for non-appearance in his
personal capacity and Order 9 Rule 9 CPC requires an affidavit to be filed by the plaintiff and
not the counsel, in order to restore the suit on sufficient grounds. The lower Court finally held
that Order 9 Rule 9 does not authorise a counsel on record to file an affidavit stating
sufficient cause for non-appearance of the plaintiff before the Court on a particular hearing.
In such circumstances, the Trial Court held that the affidavit filed by the Counsel on record
for non-appearance of the plaintiff as impermissible in law and consequently dismissed the
application filed for restoration. Aggrieved by the said decision, the plaintiff has preferred
this appeal. In an appeal, the High Court of Madras, setting aside the lower Courts decision
restored the suit on following grounds:

- The Lower Court has dismissed the interlocutory application merely on the ground
that the application itself is not maintainable in law, since the advocate on record has
filed the affidavit. In my opinion, the application cannot be disposed of as not
maintainable, but the Counsel can be called upon to explain or he can recuse himself
from the case.
- Affidavit filed by the advocate discloses the fact that the plaintiff is an old man living
in Germany. It is further stated in the affidavit that he has travelled to India to attend
the Court on many occasions, but the suit was not taken up for trial. The Counsel on
record has stated in her affidavit that before she could step in to the Court, the matter
was called and dismissed for default, for non-appearance of the plaintiff and the
Counsel.

36 Accessed at: http://judis.nic.in/judis_chennai/qrydisp.aspx?filename=34219

Page | 14
 - Facts of the present case disclose that the Counsel could not represent the matter.
Therefore, as a person who is conversant with the facts of the case, it is open to her to
explain to the Court for her non-appearance, by filing an affidavit.37

CONSOLIDATION OF SUITS
The power under Sec. 151 cannot be resorted to deal with a situation that can be apdtly
dealt by any other available provision of the Code. For instance, power to grant temporary
injunction is under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, court cannot exercise the power
and grant injunction under Section 151 C.P.C.38 Consolidation of suits which is not dealt
by any provision of the Code, and thus Court has, in a number of cases, exercised its
inherent powers to answer the question of consolidation of suits.

Allahabad High Court, deciding upon the question of consolidation in the matter of
Shambhoo Dayal vs. Chandra Kali Devi & Ors,39, ruled that in all, consolidation of suits
can be done provided they deal with same question of law upon same question of fact,
and it will not be a case of misjoinder of parties.

Similar view was reiterated by judiciary in the matter of Ranjit Kumar Pal Chowdhury
vs. Murari Mohan Pal Chowdhury40, where it was held by the Court that:

The rule of multifariousness is a rule of convenience and it is primarily in the discretion

of the court to decide whether the plaintiff should be allowed to proceed with different
cause of actions in the same suit upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances of
the case.41

Thus, deciphering the intent of Sec. 151, it can be said that the Court has an inherent
discretionary power to consolidate the suits provided such suits fulfil the pre-requisites of
having sufficient uniformity or similarity in the issues arose or determination of suits rest

37 R.M.Bedi vs. M/s.Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd., 2007(2)CTC231

38 Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993; See: Nain Singh vs. Koonwarjee & Ors.,
AIR 1970 SC 997

39 Shambhoo Dayal vs. Chandra Kali Devi & Ors, AIR 1964 All 350

40 AIR 1958 Cal 710

41 Mst. Ramdayee vs. Dhanraj Kochar & ors., AIR 1972 Cal 313

Page | 15
 mainly on the common question and it is convenient to try them as analogous cases.
Clarifying this point, Patna High Court, has opined that:

The question to be considered should also be as to whether or not the non-consolidation

of two or more suits is likely to lead apart from multiplicity of suits, to leaving the door
open for conflicting decisions on the same issue which may be common to the two or
more suits sought to be consolidated. ..........the convenience of the parties and the
expenses in the two suits are subsidiary to the more important considerations, namely,
whether it will avoid multiplicity of suits and eliminate chances of conflicting decisions
on the same point.42

In the State of Rajasthan vs. Motiram43, the Court took the view that the applicant must
please the Court that if the order of consolidation is not passed it would be prejudicial to
the party and would result in failure of justice and he must show that how the separate
judgments and decree, if passed, would be void or ineffective as the whole object of
inherent exercise of power under Sec. 151 CPC, in absence of any specific provision for
merging of suits, is only to avoid diversity of proceedings and to prevent delay and
pointless costs and expenses. By consolidation, it cannot be inferred that the Court after
consolidation ceases to have jurisdiction to dispose of the consolidated suits separately.

NO SCOPE FOR GETTING ANY RELIEF

The inherent powers of the Court vide Sec. 151 CPC are to be invoked in case there are
certain exceptional circumstances present in the matter and the plaintiff has exhausted
other possible remedies but still has not got justice or where there is no other remedy
available to him, he can approach the Court. In the matter of Manoharlal v. Seth Hiralal, it
was ruled that the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive as the legislature is
incapable of contemplating all possible circumstances which may arise in future
litigation.44 The Court, while dealing with the question applicability of Sec. 151,
deciphered the intent of the provision in the following words:

although the order rejecting the plaint was a decree and was appealable, there was
hardly any scope for getting any relief in the appeal, as the sufficient cause to be

42 M/s Bokaro & Ramgur Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1973 Pat 340

43 State of Rajasthan vs. Motiram, AIR 1973 Raj 223

44 Manoharlal vs. Seth Hiralal, 1962 AIR 527

Page | 16
 established for setting aside the order rejecting the plaint and for restoration of the suit
can be brought to the notice of the trial court more appropriately and more effectively (by
invoking the inherent power) and, therefore, Section 151 of the Code could be made
applicable for providing the remedy in such a situation.

Recently, in the matter of K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palaanisamy45, the Honble Supreme
Court discussed the scope of powers provided by Sec. 151 and observed that Sec. 151 of
the Code recognizes the discretionary power inherited by every court as a necessary
corollary for rendering justice in accordance with law, to do what is right and undo what
is wrong. Following important characteristic of the provision were laid down:

(i) It is not a substantive provision and merely recognizes a discretionary power of

Court.
(ii) The provision is not exhaustive in nature and can be invoked in case the code does
not deal with any aspect either expressly or impliedly.
(iii) Court has no power to do things which is forbidden by law or the Code, in the
exercise of its inherent powers. The court cannot make use of the special
provisions of Sec. 151, where the remedy or procedure is expressly provided in
the Code.

LIMITATIONS OF INHERENT POWERS U/S 151

Every legal provision is restricted by certain conditions or circumstances in which the Court
can refuse to exercise the powers conferred upon them by such provision. So is the case with
Sec. 151 CPC. As seen above, it is to be invoked only when certain pre-requisites have been
fulfilled and the Court, upon examination may find out whether or not the pleader has
complied with such requirements before approaching the Court. There are certain limitations
on exercise of Sec. 151 and some circumstances debar the pleader from invoking the Courts
jurisdiction under this section.

When there is no case of grant of a particular relief under a particular statute, power under
sec.151 need not be exercised. In a case where a Hindu woman married to a Hindu
Male having a living lawful wedded wife claimed maintenance, the Court was of the view

45 K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palaanisamy, 2011 AIAR (CIVIL) 497

Page | 17
that such relief cannot be granted U/s 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the marriage being
void under section 5(1) thereof, and such reliefs cannot be granted by invoking sec.151.46

The powers conferred by Sec. 151 are not to be exercised if such exercise proves to be in
conflict any other provisions expressly or impliedly. The Court, refusing to exercise the
jurisdiction under Sec. 151, in the matter of Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills (p) Ltd. vs.
Kanhaya Lal Bhargava47, observed that:

A court cannot override the express provision of law but if there is no express provision in
the statute, then the apex court has held that the court can exercise its power in a suitable
case.

As stated earlier, this section has limited jurisdiction and can be invoked in order to meet the
ends of justice and prevent abuse of process of the court. If the court feels that the actions of
the party against whom such jurisdiction has been requested by the pleader do not cause
abuse to the Court process or if it feels that any other available remedy is sufficiently capable
of doing justice in a particular case, it will reject the application and would not waste judicial
time. One cannot rule out the fact that the same inherent powers can be exercised ex
debitojustitae only in the absence of express provisions in the code.48 As per the ruling given
in the case of Velayudhan Nair vs. Kerela Ksheman Yunik Kuries Pvt. Ltd, Trichur,49 these
powers can be exercised when no other remedy is available. Sec.151 hence cannot be invoked
as substitute for appeal, revision or review. In exercise of inherent powers however, the court
cannot override general principle of law. It could only be for securing ends of justice and
prevent abuse of process of court.

46 Abbayolla M Subba Reddy vs. Padmamma, AIR 1999 AP 19

47 Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills (p) Ltd. vs. Kanhaya Lal Bhargava, AIR 1966 SC 1899

48 MahendraManilal vs. SushilaMahendra AIR 1965 SC 364 p. 399

49 Velayudhan Nair vs. Kerela Ksheman Yunik Kuries Pvt. Ltd, Trichur, AIR 1988 Ker 223

Page | 18
 CONCLUSION

Section 151 comes with its pros and cons for both the parties in the litigation. The Court
enjoys the ultimate discretion in allowing an appeal under this provision, given the case
presented before it includes certain very essential questions which are capable to have a
visible effect on the legal system if not dealt now. If few rudiments are dawdled by every
court then it would not be wearisome or confusing occupation to focus the stage with
reference to when the inherent powers ought to be summoned.

It seems that the reason of having consigned with inherent powers might be applied as
positive weapon to support few passes in procedural parts of a dispute by the courts in the
matters where the advice come and contend on specifics. Also it is shown that the courts are
even vigilant enough in respect to the stage and situations for conjuring inherent powers and
have strictly emulated the standards authorising the provisions of Section 151.

This power of the judiciary is not unjustifiably far-reaching and unrestricted. Sec.151 which
gives judicial appreciation to inherent powers also makes clear the fact that the powers can
be exercised only when such action is explicitly prohibited by the Code or any other statute;
or where there exists a provision of the Code applicable to the matter at hand. The judiciary
forms a vital column on which a democracy such as India rests. Codified statutes such as the
Code of Civil Procedure aim to make the judicial process as undeviating and unprejudiced as
possible so that there remains no or very minimal chance of anyone accusing the Courts and
the laws for their loss and the whole process is transparent. Yet the legislative practise takes
due cognisance of the fact that not all circumstances can be pre-empted and procedures laid
down for the same. Sec.151 is a mere restatement of this very fact as it recognises the courts
ability in best granting justice in all those situations where the Code of Civil Procedure or any
other statute is not applicable.

Page | 19